The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection issued an execution ruling, which, under the threat of fines, called on the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade to provide journalist of Pistaljka Portal within two days with the information requested in connection with the case against Sinisa Mali, which will show following:
- the reference number of the said case, what are criminal charges in this case and, in what stage it is, the actions the Prosecutor’s Office has undertaken in the case, and whether Sinisa Mali was interrogated and when,
- what the Prosecutor’s Office has undertaken regarding the 2016 Anti-Corruption Agency Report,
- when the Prosecutor’s Office received a report by the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering on the control of financial activities of Sinisa Mali, which the Administration conducted upon the request of Hypo Alpe-Adria Bank in 2009 and what was undertaken in this regard.
As early as the end of August 2017, upon the complaint of the information requester, the Commissioner issued a ruling ordering the Public Prosecutor's Office to provide this information. This Commissioner’s ruling is by law final, binding and enforceable. However, the journalist, the information requester, addressed the Commissioner, pointing out that the Prosecutor’s Office failed to comply with the ruling, it did not provide her with any information requested, but only informed her that the case filed against Sinisa Mali was submitted to the First Basic Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade for further action, and therefore it cannot comply with the Commissioner's ruling. The journalist requested from the Commissioner to proceed with the enforcement.
Having in mind all relevant circumstances, the Commissioner issued a ruling allowing enforcement.
The fact that the Higher Prosecutor's Office brought the case against Sinisa Mali to the First Basic Public Prosecutor's Office is without prejudice to the adoption of a different decision. The fact that the case has been forwarded to some other prosecutor’s office does not mean that the Prosecutor’s Office does not possess the requested information. On the contrary, the possession of documents containing all the requested information undoubtedly arises from the provisions of the Rules of Administration of public prosecutor's office, which prescribe that the data that are of importance for work are entered in registers, auxiliary books and other records (about the events and persons against whom the procedure has been initiated, decisions, undertaken actions, etc.), , and if conditions allow, they are also recorded by electronic means.
In addition, the First Basic Public Prosecutor's Office explicitly stated in the letter to the information requester that only a part of the Agency Report related to the possible execution of the criminal offense referred to in Article 72 of the Anti-Corruption Agency Act was forwarded to it and that it has undertaken actions in the pre-criminal proceedings to verify the allegations contained in that part of the Report, but that other parts of the Report and other information have remained in the possession of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office.
The Commissioner estimates that this is yet another attempt to circumvent the law, that is, the public's right, which by itself, and especially in view of the completely contradictory information provided by the Higher and First Basic Public Prosecutor's Office, first of all, is detrimental to the already stained reputation of the prosecution organization as a whole.
